Sports Reporter

Experienced players such as Jamie Lyon of the Sea Eagles have been involved in obstruction rulings. Photo: Getty Images

NRL coaches and players complaining about the obstruction rule have only themselves to blame if they are taking advantage of the inexperience in the refereeing ranks this season.

After deciding he could not leave calls on obstruction open to the discretion of match officials while trying to fast track a number of former players to become video referees, new NRL referees boss Daniel Anderson visited each club during the off-season to ensure the coaches and players understood how the rule would be adjudicated.

In outlining the strict letter of the law interpretation that will be in place until Luke Patten, Justin Morgan and Matt Rodwell are ready to join Paul Mellor, Henry Perenara and Luke Phillips in ruling on tries, Anderson also tipped coaches and players off about how to get an opposition try disallowed.

With the number of tries denied so far this season because of an obstruction away from the ball, it appears some teams are benefiting from that knowledge.

Advertisement

In fact, it likely given how much time teams spend rehearsing moves that defenders are also being trained to make it appear as though they have been obstructed.

They also have intimate knowledge of how opponents operate in attack - not just from studying video but because most teams do the same thing.

Fairfax columnist Phil Gould observed after the opening round of matches that each team played with "the same philosophy, same attacking structures and pretty much the same plays".

"The playmakers run across the field with inside and outside decoy runners before firing the ball back deep to a second playmaker, who then uses another decoy runner to throw it back to a fullback, who then tries to create a three-on-two situation down a sideline corridor," Gould wrote.

If defenders know that, they also know how to position themselves so that a decoy runner can't avoid making contact with them.

Some of the game's most experienced players, such as Manly captain Jason Lyon and Gold Coast skipper Greg Bird, have been awarded penalties because they were "obstructed" from being able to effect a tackle in the lead up to an opposition try, which was subsequently disallowed.

There have also been numerous examples of defenders being "knocked" to the ground, sparking concerns that the strict interpretation of the obstruction rule was encouraging players to take "dives".

In the past two weeks, there have been at least five contentious obstruction calls, with the most controversial being the decision to disallow a try to Melbourne halfback Cooper Cronk against the Bulldogs in round three because of contact between two players 15 metres away.

Anderson said in a lengthy interview on ABC radio on Sunday that he wanted the Cronk try to be allowed but wasn't sure "how to do that without compromising other components of the game".

"If you tweak the rules - no matter what rules you design - the rugby league playing abilities of players and coaches...with the amount of time they have, a number of coaches will find other areas inside the new rules which we will be commenting on anyway," Anderson said.

"The thing about rugby league is that it is so dynamic and they find chinks in rules and the boundaries of the rules. The coaches are very intelligent.

"Once players and coaches are inside the framework of the rules...some teams just get it wrong on occasion."

Anderson also said the match officials were aware of players diving.

"We are working on that. I understand that it has happened in a few games. I saw one [in the Dragons-Sharks match] where the referee on the field actually tagged it and said 'just get up, don't do that again, that is unnecessary'.

"I saw one in the Melbourne-Brisbane game and the referees are seeing that now."

Anderson said it had been decided to penalise any decoy runner who made contact with a defender as the match officials currently "don't have the capacity to have discretion".

The Justin Hodges try in last year's Origin decider was proof of that and is an example of why he wants to get former players involved in making such decisions as they have a better understanding of the plays.

"If we get to where the video referee has discretion it is going to have to be at a point where everyone in there has a depth of knowledge to make those decisions," Anderson said.

6 comments so far

There's always going to be grey areas regardless of if the powers that be declare it a black and white issue.Coaches will always coach their players to play to the whistle...to play to the letter of the law and that will not necessarily always be in the spirit of the game.

I was more curious about the situation regarding San Thaiday in the Broncos Vs Storm game.For the record...I'm not a Broncos Fan but he was clearly held back after the ball had clearly left the scrum.

Can someone with more footy nouse than me please explain how that situation does not result in an interference or obstruction penalty against Melbourne...was he not interfered with and was he not obstructed in his attempt to make a tackle?

Commenter

Manon DeEdge

Date and time

April 01, 2013, 3:36PM

It didn't disadvantage the Broncos because big Sammy wouldn't have laid a fingernail on Slater. As scrum is supposed to take half the player on the field out of the play to open up the game and allow the back to create one on one situations. The Broncos back line defender was asked to decide if he should drift wide onto the player outside the ball carrier or hold his line and cover the inside ball - he drifted wide and Salter came back on the inside,

Commenter

ew75

Date and time

April 02, 2013, 11:11AM

The referee ruled that the holding of Thaiday was part of the scrum. As the players are required to 'bind' the scrum that means that they need to hold onto each other. For what it's worth, I think that yes, Thaiday was held in the scrum but that even had he been released he had no chance of catching Slater.

Commenter

longlunch

Date and time

April 02, 2013, 11:22AM

Can't believe the drama that is around a rule that was always clear when I was a kid. I realise interpretation is an issue but what about this for starter.

1 If you run behind a team mate and it unfairly prevents an opponent from the opportunity to make an effective tackle it is obstruction - penalty to other team

2 if a decoy runner makes contact with a defender and it unfairly prevents an opponent from the opportunity to make an effective tackle it is obstruction - penalty to other team

3 if a defender makes a definite movement towards a decoy runner (opposed to the player with the ball) and contact is made, play shall continue as normal

Commenter

Sad eel

Date and time

April 01, 2013, 8:44PM

All this talk about following the rules of the game and yet one of the most basic rules from way back; that the ball has to be fed into the MIDDLE of a scrum is broken at every scrum.

Commenter

nnps

Date and time

April 02, 2013, 8:59AM

No matter what tweaks are made to the obstruction rule or the interpretation guidelines, unfortunately there will be ongoing "controversy" because coaches will always seek to find a way to benefit their team. For example, the 10 metre rule was designed to give more space to the attack but coaches realised it was a way to gain an 10 metres hence the 3 or 4 tackles spent driving over the advantage line with a forward hit up. Harrigan and Raper kept tweaking the interpretation to try to provide guidance on obstruction. Unfortunately in the end someone would have needed a degree in physics and bio-mechanics to work out what was reasonable depth in a play, were passes on the inside or outside of the shoulder, was the defender dis-advantaged because they would have been quick enough to get to the attacker.

There should be more pressure put on coaches and players to play within the rules and spirit rather than being congratulated on their ability to manipulate referees decisions, otherwise called professionalism or gamesmanship.